home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!seismo!skadi!stead
- From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
- Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
- Subject: Re: Earthquake Alarm?
- Message-ID: <51903@seismo.CSS.GOV>
- Date: 21 Jan 93 19:52:10 GMT
- References: <41350005@hpindda.cup.hp.com> <1jladfINNlgb@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <15705@cis.rand.org>
- Sender: usenet@seismo.CSS.GOV
- Lines: 28
- Nntp-Posting-Host: skadi.css.gov
-
- In article <15705@cis.rand.org>, stephan@cis.rand.org (Stephan DeSpiegeleire) writes:
- > Does this mean that the type of alarms that you guys have *IS* 100%
- > reliable? And if so, can we infer from this that they might some day
- > become part of some civil defense-type alarm system as exists for airraids
- > and/or missile attacks?
-
- No, existims early warning systems are not 100% reliable, nor will they
- ever be. there will still be some small number of false alarms, and
- some small number of missed events. To a certain extent, I believe
- the numbers of these could be made arbitrarily small depending on how
- much is invested.
-
- The other main advantage of a centralized early warning system is that it could
- provide more than just an alarm. Expected time to heavy shaking and
- expected amplitude of heavy shaking could also be made available. All this
- with the minimal broadcast information (location, time, magnitude). A
- fancy receiver with synthesized voice could be made that would announce
- something like "15 seconds, intensity VIII".
-
- A P-wave detector connected to an alarm is more unreliable, and cannot
- determine the expected intensity or the time when it will arrive.
-
- --Richard
- --
- Richard Stead
- Center for Seismic Studies
- Arlington, VA
- stead@seismo.css.gov
-